DOCSLIB.ORG

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Breeding Site and Territory Summary—2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Breeding Site and Territory Summary—2007 In cooperation with Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Game and Fish Department, and Bureau of Reclamation Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Breeding Site and Territory Summary—2007 By Scott L. Durst, Mark K. Sogge, Shay D. Stump, Hira A. Walker, Barbara E. Kus, and Susan J. Sferra Open–File Report 2008–1303 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Suggested citation: Durst, S.L., Sogge, M.K., Stump, S.D., Walker, H.A., Kus, B.E., and Sferra, S.J., 2008, Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites and territory summary—2007: U.S. Geological Survey Open–File Report 2008–1303, 31 p. Cover: Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), U.S. Geological Survey photograph. ii Contents Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1 Additional Considerations in Using and Interpreting the Data in This Report.....................................................2 Subspecies Status of Each Site ...................................................................................................................................3 Population Estimates......................................................................................................................................................3 Data Summaries .................................................................................................................................................................4 Changes in the Number of Known Territories over Time........................................................................................4 Numbers of Sites over Time: Surveyed vs. Estimated .............................................................................................5 Numbers of Territories over Time: Surveyed vs. Estimated ...................................................................................6 Recency of Survey Data................................................................................................................................................7 Distribution of Breeding Sites by Number of Territories.........................................................................................8 Distribution of Territories by State ............................................................................................................................10 Distribution of Territories by Drainage .....................................................................................................................11 Distribution of Territories by Recovery Unit and Management Unit...................................................................12 Elevation Range of Breeding Territories ..................................................................................................................14 Use of Native and Exotic Habitats.............................................................................................................................15 Dominant Tree Species at Breeding Sites...............................................................................................................16 Administration/Management of Sites and Territories ...........................................................................................17 2007 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................17 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................18 References.........................................................................................................................................................................19 Appendix 1. Distribution of Flycatcher Sites and Territories by Year.....................................................................21 Appendix 2. List of Extirpated Sites...............................................................................................................................25 References.....................................................................................................................................................................29 Figures 1. Estimated number of known Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites and territories, from 1993 to 2007 .......................................................................................................................................................................................4 2. Number of estimated and surveyed Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites from 1993 to 2007 ......5 3. Number of estimated and surveyed Southwestern willow flycatcher territories, from 1993 to 2007.............6 4. Number of territories at willow flycatcher breeding sites as of 2007...................................................................8 5. Graphs showing the distribution of Southwestern willow flycatcher by elevation.........................................14 6. Percentage of flycatcher territories occurring within breeding sites of differing compositions of native and exotic vegetation, as of the 2007 breeding season ............................................................................................15 7. Percentage of flycatcher territories occurring within breeding sites dominated by particular tree species during the 2007 breeding season...................................................................................................................................16 8. Percentage of flycatcher breeding sites and territories found under different land ownership, as of the 2007 breeding season ......................................................................................................................................................17 Tables 1. Most recent year of survey data for sites and territories included in this report, as of 2007..........................7 2. Number of Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites and territories by state, as of 2007 ..................10 iii 3. Number of Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites and territories by major river drainage, as of the 2007 breeding season ...............................................................................................................................................11 4. Currently known number of flycatcher breeding sites, territories, and number of territories necessary for recovery criteria, by recovery unit and management unit........................................................................................12 1-1. Distribution of flycatcher sites and territories by year and state based on both estimated and surveyed values..................................................................................................................................................................................21 2-1. List of the 142 sites that at one time had Southwestern willow flycatcher territories, but were unoccupied as of the most recent survey....................................................................................................................25 iv Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Breeding Site and Territory Summary—2007 By Scott L. Durst1, Mark K. Sogge1, Shay D. Stump2, Hira A. Walker3, Barbara E. Kus4, and Susan J. Sferra5 Introduction The Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; hereafter references to willow flycatcher and flycatcher refer to E.t. extimus, except where specifically noted) is an endangered bird that breeds only in dense riparian habitats in parts of six Southwestern states (Arizona, New Mexico, southern California, extreme southern Nevada, southern Utah, and southwestern Colorado). Since 1993, hundreds of Southwestern willow flycatcher surveys have been conducted each year, and many new flycatcher breeding sites located. This document synthesizes the most current information available on all known Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites. This rangewide data synthesis was designed to meet two objectives: (1) identify all known Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites and (2) assemble data to estimate population size, location, habitat, and other information for all breeding sites, for as many years as possible, from 1993 through 2007. This report provides data summaries in terms of the number of flycatcher sites and the number of territories. When interpreting and using this information, it must be kept in mind that a “site” is a geographic location where one or more willow flycatchers establishes a territory. Sites with unpaired territorial males are considered
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)
    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) August 2002 Prepared By Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup For Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Approved: Date: Disclaimer Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved Recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Some of the techniques outlined for recovery efforts in this plan are completely new regarding this subspecies. Therefore, the cost and time estimates are approximations. Citations This document should be cited as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service 5430 Governor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 i This Recovery Plan was prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup: Deborah M.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of San Mateo County San Pedro San Pedro Creek flows northwesterly, entering the Pacific Ocean at Pacifica State Beach. It drains a watershed about eight square miles in area. The upper portions of the drainage contain springs (feeding the south and middle forks) that produce perennial flow in the creek. Documents with information regarding steelhead in the San Pedro Creek watershed may refer to the North Fork San Pedro Creek and the Sanchez Fork. For purposes of this report, these tributaries are considered as part of the mainstem. A 1912 letter regarding San Mateo County streams indicates that San Pedro Creek was stocked. A fishway also is noted on the creek (Smith 1912). Titus et al. (in prep.) note DFG records of steelhead spawning in the creek in 1941. In 1968, DFG staff estimated that the San Pedro Creek steelhead run consisted of 100 individuals (Wood 1968). A 1973 stream survey report notes, “Spawning habitat is a limiting factor for steelhead” (DFG 1973a, p. 2). The report called the steelhead resources of San Pedro Creek “viable and important” but cited passage at culverts, summer water diversion, and urbanization effects on the stream channel and watershed hydrology as placing “the long-term survival of the steelhead resource in question”(DFG 1973a, p. 5). The lower portions of San Pedro Creek were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1989. Three O. mykiss year classes were observed during the study throughout the lower creek. Researchers noticed “a marked exodus from the lower creek during the late summer” of yearling and age 2+ individuals, many of which showed “typical smolt characteristics” (Sullivan 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS
    San Mateo County Watershed Data in a GIS Introduction The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (Program) performs Watershed Assessment and Monitoring (WAM) component activities in compliance with its municipal stormwater NPDES permit requirements. In the past, a consistent countywide watershed boundary data layer has not been available to meet Program needs for mapping and analyzing watershed-related data. As a result, the Program has previously utilized the best existing available data sets and/or developed new data to meet the objectives of specific individual projects. For example, creek location and watershed boundary data were developed to characterize imperviousness and channel modifications in seventeen watersheds in San Mateo County (STOPPP 2002). In another example, Program staff compiled existing countywide watershed data and developed new data needed to identify watershed areas considered exempt from Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) requirements (STOPPP 2005). The Program previously identified two major information gaps in digital watershed boundary data: 1) limited storm drain catchment data were available for urban areas and 2) consistent countywide watershed data layers were not available (STOPPP 2005). Recent development of watershed data in urbanized portions of San Mateo County has provided an opportunity to address these information gaps. This memo describes the methods used by Program staff to create a consistent countywide watershed data layer that includes delineation of storm drain catchments in urban areas. Consistent watershed and creek data set will assist Program staff in watershed characterization and the identification and prioritization of potential future monitoring and watershed assessment activities. Background In 1999, the State of California developed a statewide watershed data layer entitled the California Interagency Watershed Map (Calwater).
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 12-1986 Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) California Regional Water Quality Control Board Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation California Regional Water Quality Control Board, "Water Quality Control Plan. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)" (1986). California Agencies. Paper 393. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/393 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WATER QUA~ITY · CONTROL PLAN Cover photo by: MICHAEL DRENNAN. Senior Water Resources Engineer San Francisco Bay Region DONALD E. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN PETER W. SNYDER, VICE CHAIRMAN* FRED KLATTE* JANICE E. MONDAVI MARION OTSEA • KENNETH R. MERCER JEPTHA WADE PHILIP WENTE *Basin Plan Committee 1986 3 F N R R This report was prepared under the direction of Roger B. James ......................................................................... Executive Officer Lawrence P. Kolb ...................................................................... Assistant Executive Officer Richard H. Whitsel ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Park Campaign
    THE GREAT PARK CAMPAIGN Protecting and Connecting the Redwood Forests FINAL REPORT – SPRING 2016 LETTER FROM THE CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIRS With your help... Carrie Drake/SVF we did it! Together, we did it! Jacqueline Wender and Diane Talbert Four years ago Sempervirens Fund defined a new, unprecedented vision for the Santa Cruz Mountains — the Great Park. To embark on that vision, we set an ambitious goal to raise $22 million in a Great Park Campaign. The purpose of this campaign was to provide Sempervirens Fund with the financial resources to (1) protect and steward key redwood forest lands; (2) develop a new entrance to Castle Rock State Park; and (3) continue the education, outreach and fundraising activities that connect people, young and old, with the redwoods. These initiatives are, in essence, the core of Sempervirens Fund’s mission to preserve and protect redwood forest habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains. We asked you to stretch high (and to dig deep!) to help reach our goal, and you did. We are very grateful. As of December 31, 2015, we met our $22 million campaign goal. Thanks to you, we protected 9,284 acres of redwood forests. We completed plans for the new entrance at Castle Rock State Park and will start Phase I construction by late summer. And we made new friends, strengthened important partnerships, and cultivated a new generation of redwood enthusiasts along the way. Our deepest thanks to each and every one of you for what you have made possible! Thanks to our fellow Board and Campaign Committee members.
    [Show full text]
  • 69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers
    69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers American Rivers releases annual list including dams in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin for a total of 23 states. Nationwide, 1,797 dams have been removed from 1912 through 2020. Dam removal brings a variety of benefits to local communities, including restoring river health and clean water, revitalizing fish and wildlife, improving public safety and recreation, and enhancing local economies. Working in a variety of functions with partner organizations throughout the country, American Rivers contributed financial and technical support in many of the removals. Contact information is provided for dam removals, if available. For further information about the list, please contact Jessie Thomas-Blate, American Rivers, Director of River Restoration at 202.347.7550 or [email protected]. This list includes all dam removals reported to American Rivers (as of February 10, 2021) that occurred in 2020, regardless of the level of American Rivers’ involvement. Inclusion on this list does not indicate endorsement by American Rivers. Dams are categorized alphabetically by state. Beale Dam, Dry Creek, California A 2016 anadromous salmonid habitat assessment stated that migratory salmonids were not likely accessing habitat upstream of Beale Lake due to the presence of the dam and an undersized pool and weir fishway. In 2020, Beale Dam, owned by the U.S. Air Force, was removed and a nature-like fishway was constructed at the upstream end of Beale Lake to address the natural falls that remain a partial barrier following dam removal.
    [Show full text]
  • (Wade?) (Gold Mining - Wade, Edward A-5 637 Santa Cruz, 1863) C-252 Wade, J
    Index to Rowland Cards. Transcribed by Joan Gilbert Martin & Stanley D. Stevens 831 Containing references to Santa Cruz County, California, Events, People, Subjects W Waddell’s Beach - Ocean Shore Railway B-3 70-71 W.C.T.U. see Women’s Christian Waddock, Louis - Christian Brothers Temperance Union School B-3 511.01 Wable, George A-6 471 Wade, Alba A-4 709.05 Wadd, A. P. (Wade?) (Gold mining - Wade, Edward A-5 637 Santa Cruz, 1863) C-252 Wade, J. E. (J. F.) A-2 899; A-5 637 Waddell & Bowles sawmill (Granite Wade, Maria A-4 709.05 Creek) A-4 834; B-3 245 Wade, Mazy C. (Mrs.) A-6 325 Waddell Bridge - Ocean Shore Wade, P. A. (Gold mining - Santa Railroad B-3 15 Cruz, 1863) C-252 Waddell Creek - Sawmills B-3 324- Wadleigh, A. S. - original subscriber 327; Wharves B-3 1248-1250.02 to Santa Cruz Sentinel B-2 Waddell Creek (San Luis Beltran aka 755.05 La Canada del Salud) B-1 806.02 Wagering - Cock Fighting (Archives: Waddell Creek area basin - Theodore Misc. Fragments) C-15 Hoover bought from heirs of Waggamen [sic], John - member William White Waddell B-2 482 Militia Roll, 1862 B-2 634.01 Waddell Mill - employees - Jones, Waggoner (Mrs. F. Tierman) A-6 471 Albert A-4 120.03; Workers B-3 Waggoner, B. W. A-6 471 357 Waggoner, H. L. (Mrs.) A-4 879 Waddell's Branciforte Creek Sawmill Waggoner, Henry Joseph A-6 471 aka Waddell Gulch A-1 620; aka Waggoner, Joe A-6 471 Blackburn Gulch A-4 834; Waggoner, Laura A-6 471 petitioners for name change, 1886 Waggoner, O.
    [Show full text]
  • National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211
    National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce § 226.211 and the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000 (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Critical habitat scale hydrologic unit maps: State of is designated to include all river Oregon, 1974 and State of California, reaches accessible to listed coho salm- 1978 which are incorporated by ref- on between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and erence. This incorporation by reference Punta Gorda, California. Critical habi- was approved by the Director of the tat consists of the water, substrate, Federal Register in accordance with 5 and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies and riverine reaches (including off- of the USGS publication and maps may channel habitats) in hydrologic units be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, and counties identified in Table 6 of Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may this part. Accessible reaches are those be inspected at NMFS, Protected Re- within the historical range of the ESU sources Division, 525 NE Oregon that can still be occupied by any life Street—Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232– stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible 2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected Re- sources, 1315 East-West Highway, Sil- reaches are those above specific dams ver Spring, MD 20910, or at the Na- identified in Table 6 of this part or tional Archives and Records Adminis- above longstanding, naturally impass- tration (NARA). For information on able barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in the availability of this material at existence for at least several hundred NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// years).
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Friday, December 10, 2004 Part II Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 226 Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Steelhead (O. mykiss) in California; Proposed Rule VerDate jul<14>2003 22:20 Dec 09, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.SGM 10DEP2 71880 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DATES: Comments on this proposed rule and represent an important component must be received by 5 p.m. P.s.t. on in the evolutionary legacy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric February 8, 2005. Requests for public biological species (56 FR 58612; Administration hearings must be made in writing by November 20, 1991). Using this January 24, 2005. approach, every Pacific salmon and O. 50 CFR Part 226 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, mykiss population in the U.S. is part of identified by docket number a distinct population segment that is [Docket No. 041123329–4329–01; I.D. No. [041123329–4329–01] and RIN number eligible for listing as a threatened or 110904F] [0648–AO04], by any of the following endangered species under the ESU. In methods: ESA listing determinations for Pacific RIN 0648–AO04 • E-mail: salmon and O. mykiss since 1991 we [email protected]. Include have identified 52 ESUs in Washington, Endangered and Threatened Species; docket number [041123329–4329–01] Oregon, Idaho and California. Presently, Designation of Critical Habitat for and RIN number [0648–AO04] in the 25 ESUs are listed as threatened or Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units subject line of the message.
    [Show full text]
  • Spreading Water for Storage Underground^
    TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 578 DECEMBER 1937 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D. C SPREADING WATER FOR STORAGE UNDERGROUND^ By A. T. MiTCHELSON, senior irrigation engineer, and DEAN C. MUCKEL, assistant irrigation engineer, Division of Irrigation, Bureau of Agricultural Engineering ^ CONTENTS Page Page Introduction 1 Spreading systems in Calif.—Continued. Sources of water supply 2 Tujunga Wash, city of Los Angeles 31 Diversion and storage of water supply— 2 Santa Clara River cone (Ventura County). 34 Spreading water for storage underground. 3 Spreading along Santa Clara River and Structure of debris fens... 4 its tributaries 36 Selection of spreading areas 6 Yucaipa Valley 45 Methods of spreading-—_ -.- — 6 Mill Creek 46 The basin method . - 6 Waterman and East Twin Creeks. 47 The furrow or ditch method— 8 Devü Creek 48 The flooding method - 9 Day Canyon 49 Use of pits and shafts 10 Cold Water Canyon 49 Qround-water conditions in Southern Cali- Water spreading projects in central Cali- fornia - - 10 fornia Ö0 Climate - H Natural spreading in river beds 66 Run-off and surface water supply— _ 11 Whitewater River . 61 Functions of the ground-water basins 11 Expwimental work _-. 63 Nature of the ground-water problem 11 Effects of a high water table on the rate of Status of present underground water Sercolation —— 68 supply -—.— 12 ect of temperature upon the rate of Spreading systems in California 16 percolation .. -— 70 Upper Santa Ana River 16 Anaheim Plot 71 Lower Santa Ana River (Orange County) _ 18 Measurement of percolation through a Lytle Creek.. 19 vertical shaft and well..
    [Show full text]
  • 90 Dams Removed in 2019 to Restore Rivers
    90 Dams Removed in 2019 to Restore Rivers American Rivers releases annual list including dams in Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin for a total of 26 states. Nationwide, 1,722 dams have been removed from 1912 through 2019. Dam removal brings a variety of benefits to local communities, including restoring river health and clean water, revitalizing fish and wildlife, improving public safety and recreation, and enhancing local economies. Working in a variety of functions with partner organizations throughout the country, American Rivers contributed financial and technical support in many of the removals. Contact information is provided for dam removals, if available. For further information about the list, please contact Jessie Thomas-Blate, American Rivers, Director of River Restoration at 202.347.7550 or [email protected]. This list includes all dam removals reported to American Rivers (as of February 6, 2020) that occurred in 2019, regardless of the level of American Rivers’ involvement. Inclusion on this list does not indicate endorsement by American Rivers. Dams are categorized alphabetically by state. Howle and Turner Dam, Tallapoosa River, Alabama The removal of Howle and Turner Dam was in the works for over four years. This project was the result of a great partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and the Alabama Rivers and Streams Network. The Service coordinated the pre-restoration planning and worked with their Fisheries and Aquatic Conservation Aquatic Habitat Restoration Team to carry out the demolition and restoration of the river channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Waters of the United States in California with Salmon And/Or Steelhead Identified As NMFS Listed Resources of Concern for EPA's PGP
    Waters of the United States in California with Salmon and/or Steelhead identified as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern for EPA's PGP ESU Hydrologic Unit Sub-area Outlet Stream Stream' Watershed Name Hydrologic Unit Sub-area 0 California Coast chinook salmon 1 (1) Redwood Creek Hydrologic Unit 1107— Redwood Creek Hydrologic Unit 1107 2 (i) Orick Hydrologic Sub-area 110710. Orick Hydrologic Sub-area 110710 3 Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek (Lat –41.2923, Long –124.0917) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 4 Boyes Creek (41.3639, –123.9845); 5 Bridge Creek (41.137, –124.0012); 6 Brown Creek (41.3986, –124.0012); 7 Emerald (Harry Weir) (41.2142, –123.9812); 8 Godwood Creek (41.3889, –124.0312); 9 Larry Dam Creek (41.3359, –124.003); 10 Little Lost Man Creek (41.2944, –124.0014); 11 Lost Man Creek (41.3133, –123.9854); 12 May Creek (41.3547, –123.999); 13 McArthur Creek (41.2705, –124.041); 14 North Fork Lost Man Creek (41.3374, –123.9935); 15 Prairie Creek (41.4239, –124.0367); 16 Tom McDonald (41.1628, –124.0419). 17 (ii) Beaver Hydrologic Sub-area 110720. Beaver Hydrologic Sub-area 110720 18 Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek (Lat 41.1367, Long –123.9309) upstream to endpoint(s): 19 Lacks Creek (41.0334, –123.8124); 20 Minor Creek (40.9706, –123.7899). 21 (iii) Lake Prairie Hydrologic Sub-area 110730. Lake Prairie Hydrologic Sub-area 110730 22 Outlet(s) = Redwood Creek (Lat 40.9070, Long –123.8170) upstream to endpoint(s) in: 23 Redwood Creek (40.7432, –123.7206). 24 (2) Trinidad Hydrologic Unit 1108— Trinidad Hydrologic Unit 1108 25 (i) Big Lagoon Hydrologic Sub-area 110810.
    [Show full text]